Proposed Rulemaking for the Conservation Security Program (CSP)

The CSP tier concept is an important advance. Determining which tier a producer should apply to is a relatively simple process. However, determining the requirements for each tier must be decided upfront in the rule and program guidance. The statute requires a minimum of one resource of concern be solved to the non-degradation/sustainable use RMS quality criteria level for both tier I and tier II participation, but also authorizes the Secretary to determine and approve the "minimum requirements for each tier of conservation contracts." We strongly recommend this authority be used to require tier II contracts to address at least two resources of concern. In other words, tier I would be at least one resource of concern, tier II at least two resources of concern, and tier III all applicable resources of concern.

We also strongly encourage that rules governing the tiers clarify that tier II requires a whole farm, conservation systems approach that includes the biggest impact practices, including, as appropriate to the particular operation and resource concerns being addressed, resource-conserving crop rotations, cover crop systems, and managed grazing, and may include conservation buffers, agroforestry practices, wetland, prairie, and other ecosystem restoration projects, and similar efforts

With respect to tier I contracts, care should be taken to ensure that selected practices are implemented to a degree and on a sufficient portion of the agricultural operation to contribute significantly to the overall environmental performance of the operation.

Of equal importance to the success of CSP, as mentioned above in the reply to question number one, is the careful adherence to the requirement that approved conservation security plans achieve quality criteria for the resource or resources of concern. Simply doing a helpful practice is not enough. Each farm plan must integrate into an overall farming/conservation system a mix of practices, whether existing or newly implemented, that can reasonably be expected to achieve a sustainable use, non-degradation, resource enhancement level of protection. In some cases practice standards and quality criteria will have to be upgraded to meet the purposes of the CSP, and whenever possible should include measurable goals for enhancing and preventing degradation of resources. Adding measurable goals to practice standards and quality criteria will aid planning efforts and help improve program and farm plan evaluation down the road.

ANPRM QUESTION #3: The law requires NRCS to describe the particular practices to be implemented, maintained, or improved as part of the program. What criteria should be used to determine which practices and activities are eligible for payment under the program? Should specific practices or activities receive priority for payment under the program? To what extent should sets of practices and activities be accorded priority for payment under the program?

The full range of NRCS science-based and field-tested land management, vegetative, and structural conservation practices that provide beneficial, cost-effective natural resource conservation and environmental enhancement should be eligible for payment under the program. These should include whatever practices are appropriately combined into a conservation system that solves the resources of concern being addressed by the CSP participant, as well as additional practices that apply to other conservation issues the producer decides to address. Interim standards should also be eligible for payment, as should as practices that are part of approved CSP on-farm research and demonstration projects.

Of course, the practices and situations the statute prohibits should be reflected in the rule - no payments for basic conservation compliance measures on highly erodible cropland where already required ; no payments on newly broken out cropland; no payments for equipment and nonland-based structures unless they are an integral part of the conservation system and essential to achieving the conservation purposes of the plan, and; no payments for animal waste storage and related structures.

The law also provides another important implementation requirement that speaks to the question about priorities for payment: "In determining the eligibility of a practice described in clause (i), the Secretary shall require, to the maximum extent practicable, that the lowest cost alternatives be used to fulfill the purposes of the conservation security plan, as determined by the Secretary." This is extremely important guidance and suggests that in many instances management-intensive approaches will be favored over more expensive structural approaches if they can be used to achieve the identified outcome. It also suggests that lower cost structural practices will be preferred over more expensive ones. This directive should be included in the rule and highlighted in the program manual.

Another point related to this question has been raised frequently in discussions about the CSP -- the need to ensure that standards for tier I will result in real conservation benefits being achieved. This issue is addressed in part by our response to question number one -- ensuring that real resources of concern are being addressed. It is also addressed by our recommendation under question number two - ensuring that tier I practices are implemented to a degree and on a sufficient portion of the agricultural operation to contribute significantly to the overall environmental performance of the operation.

Tier I enrollments also raise the issue of whether the portion of a farm being addressed, and the extent of the conservation practices being utilized, are extensive enough to result in significant conservation and environmental benefits. This is not a question about particular priority practices but rather an issue of the need for field staff to determine that, whatever the practices selected, they are implemented to a degree and on a sufficient portion of the agricultural operation to contribute significantly to the overall environmental performance of the operation. While this determination ultimately needs to be made at the field level, it is critical for the rule to stress its importance and for the program manual to make this finding part of the standard operating procedure.

ANPRM QUESTION #4: The law restricts the maximum base payment to a percentage of the total contract cap (i.e. 25 percent for tier I and 30 percent for tiers II and III). What should be the balance of the base payment, maintenance cost-share payment and enhancement payment to reward the steward and attain additional conservation benefits?

The cap in the law for base payments is a reflection of congressional intent to weight the balance of payments toward enhanced payments and cost-share for management/maintenance and new installation costs.

Enhanced payments are one of the program's most important features. These enhanced payment opportunities reflect the vision of the program to reward strong environmental performance. It is expected that enhanced payments will be a very substantial part of the total payments for many producers. We provide further insight into enhanced payments in response to question number eight.

Management and maintenance payments are also an important feature, reflecting the program objective to recognize the ongoing costs associated with maintaining conservation. We provide further comments on cost share payments in our additional response number nine.

While the base payment is capped, neither the cost share nor the enhanced payment is capped, until the payment limit combining all three factors for the tier is reached.

ANPRM QUESTION #5: The law uses the extent of the agricultural operation covered by the contract as a primary distinction between tiers I and II. Tier I covers the "enrolled portion of the agricultural operation", while tiers II and III cover "the entire agricultural operation." With the variety of ownership and landowner-tenant relationships which change over time across the country, how should "agricultural operation" be defined?

Agricultural operation should be defined as all the land the producer has in production, whether the land is owner-operated or is cash or share leased. The intent of the CSP is to motivate producers to apply conservation to all of the acres they work on, by providing incentives to enroll in tier II or III.

ANPRM QUESTION #6: The law specifies the eligible land for payment purposes as cropland, grassland, prairie land, and rangeland as well as forestland that is an incidental part of the agricultural operation. Should noncropped areas, such as turn rows or riparian areas, that are part of the agriculture operation be included for conservation treatment? Should farmsteads, ranch sites, barnyards, feedlots, equipment storage, material-handling facilities, and other such developed areas be considered part of the "agricultural operation?" What criteria should be used to determine those areas of a farm or ranch that might legitimately be excluded from the "agricultural operation?"

All land areas subject to conservation practices, whether riparian buffers, field borders, vegetated turn rows, windbreaks, waterways, etc., should be included as part of the agricultural operation and count toward base payment acres and, where applicable, cost share and maintenance payments. Similarly, lands containing barnyards, feedlots, farmsteads, ranch sites, and storage and handling facilities that have active, qualified conservation practices being applied to the land area should be eligible for base payments and, as applicable, for cost share and maintenance payments. Houses, driveways, and lawns should be excluded. The law excludes animal waste storage and treatment facilities from payments. Also by law, woodlots and forested areas are not eligible except for agro-forestry practice areas.

ANPRM QUESTION #7: The law specifies that NRCS make a base payment as part of a conservation security plan using either the 2001 national rental rate for a specific land use or another appropriate rate that assures regional equity. How should NRCS determine the base payment? If an alternative to the national rental rate is used, how should it be constructed? Should the payments be determined at the national, state or local levels?

We strongly oppose using national average rental rates. Using national average rates advantages producers in areas with low cash rents (or land values) and disadvantages those in areas with higher rents or values, resulting in enormous inequities and distortions. We strongly favor using state or county average rates rather than national ones.

We also strongly favor using land values, preferably agricultural use land values, rather than rental rates. The combination of using more localized rates and switching to agricultural use land values will greatly improve regional equity and also equity between types of agriculture. Using agricultural use land valuation rather than market land valuation has the important advantage of discounting the substantial development value that exists in many areas.

We also believe strongly there should be no grass-based farming penalty. Cropland should be valued as cropland even if currently in pasture - otherwise there would be a perverse incentive for cropping and a penalty against environmentally beneficial grass-based systems. Alternatively, the base payments could be geared to land capability class rather than current use of the land. This would make the formula more complex, but more precise.

ANPRM QUESTION #8: The law provides for an enhanced payment if an owner or operator does one or more of the following: (a) implements or maintains practices that exceed minimum requirements; (b) addresses local conservation priorities; (c) participates in on-farm research, demonstration, or pilot projects; (d) participates in a watershed or regional resource conservation plan; or (e) carries out assessment and evaluation activities relating to practices included in a conservation security plan. Enhanced payments are meant to ensure and optimize environmental benefits. How should enhanced payments be determined and calculated?

The enhanced or bonus payments are a central feature of the CSP, designed to reward the most environmentally beneficial practices. These payments ought to be a very significant part of the total payments for producers prepared to take advantage of them. In order for CSP to work as an incentive, the enhanced payment structure must be relatively simple, easy to understand, and clearly related to the choices farmers are considering as they prepare their conservation security plans. Enhanced payments must not be something calculated separately from the farm planning process. Rules should clearly spell out the enhanced payment structure. In the future, as performance-based systems evolve, the first two enhanced payments hopefully will be based even more directly on performance.

Of high importance to the ultimate success of the CSP is the automatic enhanced payment status for resource-conserving crop rotations, managed rotational grazing, conservation buffers, and other high impact, high pay-off practices and systems. We address rotations and buffers more specifically in our additional comments at the end of this document. We would note here that with respect to conservation buffers, these should be approved for enhanced payments only when they are adopted in connection with full appropriate treatment on the surrounding or adjoining land.

In the following table, we propose a schedule for awarding enhanced payments. This national schedule of enhanced payments would be applicable to every state, but could be modified and added to by each State Conservationist to reflect local priorities and goals. Each factor would only be awarded once per year per CSP contract-holder, unless otherwise noted.

ANPRM QUESTION #9: The law does not limit the number of contracts held by a producer. Should there be a limitation on the total number of contracts a producer may have? If there is no limit on the number of contracts, should USDA set an individual payment limitation for producers with multiple contracts?

The law does limit each individual producer to one contract. The statute makes repeated and consistent reference to a producer's conservation security plan and a conservation security contract. Each and every reference in the law is to a plan (singular) and a contract (singular). There is not a single reference to multiple contracts in the statute. Therefore, we take extreme issue with the first sentence in question #9. The law does not contemplate multiple contracts, and therefore USDA should not even be considering this question.

Also note that the structure of the different tiers prevents the need for, or possibility of, multiple contracts. For example, under tier I, a producer can enroll various portions of their operation. If they want to step-up to tier II, they must enroll their entire operation so tier I contracts are no longer relevant. If they want to step-up to tier III, they must address all resources of concern (not just one) on their entire operation so tier II contracts are no longer relevant. In essence, by the way the program is designed it is not possible to have multiple contracts spread across the different tiers. It would also not be possible to have multiple contracts in tier II or tier III.

It might be possible to have multiple contracts under tier I -- if in fact the law provided for multiple contracts, which it does not - but it would not be necessary. If a tier I enrollment involved several different portions of different fields or farms, they could all still be enrolled in a single contract. If a tier I enrollee added a new field into the CSP at a later day, the original contract could be amended to account for the additional land and practices.

Multiple contracts are unnecessary and would only serve to circumvent the clear intention of the payment limitation provision. Congress clearly intended to limit the funds flowing to each individual producer under CSP - even it they might do more for conservation with larger payments. The intent is to entice all farmers to participate, but limit payments to a moderate amount per farmer per year. The program was not intended to pay for every last conservation practice and every last acre possible. To do so would not only run up the cost of the program substantially, but also risk the loss of public support and enthusiasm for the program.

Finally, even if USDA decided to allow for multiple tier I contracts - a decision which no doubt would be challenged - there would still be no need to "set an individual payment limitation for producers with multiple contracts" because the law requires direct attribution of payments back to the individual or entity. CSP payments are attributed directly to real persons regardless of the type or number of business entities, farms, locations or any other factor. Even if a tier I producer was allowed multiple contracts, all related payments would be attributed to the producer and the sum total could not exceed $20,000.

The intent of Congress is clear that whichever tier a producer will fit within, there are specific payment limitations they cannot exceed. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the law be followed as written and not altered through implementation of multiple contracts or through any other administratively created loophole. After extensive farm policy debate, the CSP was passed by Congress and signed by the President with strong limits on the payments any one producer can receive from the program -- $20,000 (of which not more than $5,000 may consist of base payments) for those enrolled at tier I, $35,000 (of which not more than $10,500 may consist of base payments) for those enrolled at tier II, and $45,000 (of which not more than $13,500 may consist of base payments) for those enrolled at tier III. USDA must implement the program to abide by these payment limits and to develop rules to ensure they cannot be skirted.

It is quite important that the regulations, program manual, and all other CSP implementing guidance materials clearly and strictly follow the law and the legislative history concerning payment limits. The rules need to be clear that all payments are direct attributed to real persons and clear that multiple contracts, whether for a single operation or for multiple operations by a single producer, are not allowed. This is critical both to the program's integrity and to controlling the program cost.

We also urge you to write clear rules and guidance, based on the statutory definition of producer, prohibiting payments to cash rent landlords and other individuals and entities not at risk. For crop share landlords, rules and guidance should clearly state that the share of the payments can be no greater than usual and customary crop shares for landlords in a given area. For actual producers who are at risk, rules and guidance should require material participate in the operation on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis, including personal provision of management, labor and on-site services.

ANPRM QUESTION #10: The law requires that the regulations provide for adequate safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers, including provisions for sharing payments, on a fair and equitable basis. Concerns have been raised over the impact of CSP provisions on owner/operator relationships including changes in rental rates or changes in operators. How can NRCS ensure that payments are shared on a fair and equitable basis?

It is extremely important that payments to crop share landlords are not greater than the usual and customary crop share for landlords in the local area. This should be required by rule and enforced. Without such a provision, lease arrangements could be manipulated to capture most or all of the payment stream for the landlord.

The CSP contract should include a provision for both crop share landlord and tenant/sharecropper to sign that assigns CSP payment division. We also recommend an appropriate form be provided for reporting changes in a farming operation, with streamlined approval if new owners or renters agree to continue the CSP contract as previously agreed to.

Provision will also be needed for termination of a CSP contract or repayment if a tenant loses a farm or turns back operation of a farm to a landlord during the contract period. While the statute requires contract termination at this point, we urge that streamlined provisions be put in place to provide a new contract for the remaining portion of the operation on an expedited basis. Ultimately, we would support a technical correction to the statute to provide for a less cumbersome arrangement in these instances. In the meantime, we urge you to implement contract termination and new contract development in such instances as simply as possible, so that the process functions, in essence, as a simple contract modification to reflect the loss of particular acres.

Question #10 may also imply concern about changes in rental rates in cash rent situations. This of course is a longstanding concern for all types of farm payments for which there is no easy solution. We would point out, however, that it is a far more severe and serious matter with respect to commodity program benefits than the CSP and is another important reason why strong payment limit rules should be retained in the CSP and, even more so, should be restored to commodity programs.

ANPRM QUESTION #11: The law requires a minimum contract length in CSP of five years. Many landlord-tenant relationships are short-term in nature, usually less than five years. Should the applicant be required to have control of the land for the complete CSP contract period? How should the program address the tension between the return to management versus the return to capital?

Consistent with the rules for other USDA conservation programs, the applicant should demonstrate a reasonable expectation of control of the land for the contract period. Evidence of control should include a deed or other evidence of land ownership, a lease, a letter of authorization to enroll in the CSP from the landowner, evidence of historical use of the land, or any other reasonable demonstration of control. If a producer loses control of land during the contract period, the appropriate modifications to the terms of the contract and payment schedule should be made as quickly as possible, so the contract termination and new contract start-up process can occur as seamlessly as possible. In our view, it would be antithetical to the goals of the program to eliminate someone from the program, and potentially lose their important conservation commitments, simply because, for example, someone outbids them on some rented ground.

The program is all about fostering development, implementation, and management of actively managed conservation systems and therefore should clearly emphasize returns to management. While there will inevitably be a return to capital element to any farm payment program, program implementation should not include return to capital as an objective to be pursued.

ANPRM QUESTION #12: The law does not prescribe a funding or acreage cap for CSP. USDA estimates that there is a potential applicant pool of over two million farms and ranches covering over 900 million potential eligible acres. A primary implementation concern is the program scope. In order for this program to accomplish the Administration's goal of maximizing the conservation and improvement of natural resources, it is necessary to prioritize CSP assistance. The Department is seeking public comments on ways to focus and prioritize CSP assistance. For example, if the program would only fund the highest-priority applications, should there be an open application process with all applicants competing for a limited number of contracts? Should applications be constrained by resource concern, program funding, tier level, owner-operator relationship, geography or other constraint?

The law does not prescribe a dollar or acreage cap because the CSP is a conservation entitlement program. The absence of a cap was not some mysterious oversight in the drafting or legislative process. It was a centerpiece of the program from day one right through to final passage and bill signing. It was an aspect of the program that was discussed, debated, challenged, and ultimately endorsed as part of the final farm bill deal. Therefore, USDA must use the conservation requirements of the program as the only limiting factor. Every farmer or rancher who agrees to an approved conservation security plan must be enrolled.

In this light, it is extremely important to remember key elements of the program:

The Department should focus its energy on making the CSP the best and most effective conservation program for working lands it can be, and should resist the temptation to try to rewrite the farm bill through the rulemaking and implementation process. We urge you to stop thinking of ways to fundamentally change the nature of the program from an entitlement program to a program limited by crop, geography, or funding cap. To do otherwise not only would violate the law, but would waste the best opportunity in decades to get conservation on the ground and solve critical environmental problems by rewarding the very best conservation farming systems and encouraging their wider spread adoption. It would also squander the opportunity of a lifetime to develop and promote a program that should become a key ingredient of future farm policy.

One final note: If Congress were to retain the recently imposed ten-year funding cap of $3.77, then USDA will be forced to cease CSP enrollments at the point when that money is spent. Up to that point, however, the CSP remains an entitlement program and functions the same way as it would without the cap. While the program would remain conceptually the same, the artificial cap would limit the program's scope and many farmers would be blocked from participation. We remain optimistic, however, that the cap will be lifted. Senate leaders have committed to eliminating the cap and restoring full funding to the CSP and we encourage NRCS and USDA to very strongly support that effort.

ANPRM QUESTION #13: The law includes energy as a resource concern for CSP program purposes. The NRCS Field Office Technical Guide does not recognize energy as a natural resource concern and therefore no quality criteria or non-degradation standard exists to compare a conservation treatment against. NRCS is seeking comments on how energy use should be incorporated into the program requirements. How should the benefits be assessed?

Energy conservation, but not energy production, should be developed as a resource concern and appropriate conservation practice standards and quality criteria should be worked into the technical guides on an expedited basis. Increased energy efficiency or reduced energy use beyond a minimum threshold should be the benchmark for assessing success. There is a great deal of research and on-farm demonstration information on energy conservation available that should be reviewed and incorporated into this technical guide expansion process.

Other conservation concerns listed in the statute as eligible for CSP contracts under Section 1238A(d)(4) also should have conservation practice standards and quality criteria developed. For example, biological resource conservation and regeneration, especially for plant and animal germplasm screening, evaluation, regeneration, and conservation, needs to be incorporated into the technical guides as soon as possible. This is a paramount natural resource concern and should not only be part of the CSP as provided by law but also part of the NRCS portfolio more broadly. A good deal of information on this resource concern is available from Agricultural Research Service and private non-profits organizations. These germplasm conservation practices would presumably fall under the existing "plant suitability," "plant conditions," and "animal management" quality criteria categories.

New standards and criteria should also be developed for protection and conservation of pollinators, similar to current pest management practices for creating habitat for beneficials.

To aid in threatened and endangered species recovery efforts, wildlife practices under current "animal habitat" and "animal management" categories should be expanded to include a full range of livestock exclusion practices capable of helping livestock producers and fruit and vegetable growers prevent conflicts with wildlife, particularly large predators. The conservation practice standards also should be modified to allow practices that are identified in Endangered Species Act recovery plans or in state or ecoregional biodiversity plans, provided they are consistent with the purposes of the CSP.

We would also strongly encourage NRCS at the national level to follow the lead of several state NRCS offices in creating organic cropping and organic livestock system practice standards. Adding organic systems to the national handbook will foster maximum environmental benefit from organic systems and facilitate the expanded use of NRCS services in meeting the needs of the steadily growing number of organic producers.

We note that all of these efforts, while important to implementation of the CSP, are also relevant to other conservation programs and to natural resource conservation efforts in general. We recommend that a plan of action be developed to deal with these issues in a timely fashion, making optimal use of outside experts from other agencies and nongovernmental organizations.

ANPRM QUESTION #14: The law includes payment for conservation practices described as requiring planning, implementation, management and maintenance. A concern was raised as to whether the payment would be, in fact, a return for equity in capital or for the engagement in intensive management. What should the program be paying for?

A significant body of literature as well as a multitude of anecdotes from farmers, both compiled over several decades, led to the inclusion in the CSP of an element that allows reimbursement for management and maintenance activities. It is clear that one of the key characteristics that distinguish most conventional from sustainable or model conservation farming operations is more intense and careful management - which in turn requires enhanced knowledge, better planning and record-keeping, and more upkeep of complex production practices/systems. It is necessary that farmers receive assistance for these activities if the CSP is going to be successful. In fact, this component of the CSP is one of its major innovations compared to the other USDA conservation programs. Certainly we do not want to suggest that these payments could not also be perceived as a return for equity in capital, but it is a secondary consideration. Compensation for what is in essence human capital is primary, however, and is what the program should be paying for.

ANPRM QUESTION #15: The law provides little guidance for monitoring quality assurance or specifics on identifying contract violations. The issue is two-fold in nature encompassing both the measurement of outcomes from a performance standpoint and assuring the federal funds are spent wisely and that contracts are appropriately carried out. How should USDA ensure accountability?

A valid criticism of current conservation programs is that there has not been enough study of their effectiveness or their economic costs and benefits. It is also true that few if any laws establishing conservation programs provide guidance for monitoring quality assurance or provide specifics on the means to identify contract violations. It is also true that insufficient federal funds have been available to monitor and evaluate program effectiveness, as the experience for the past six years with EQIP so well demonstrates.

The CSP ought to set a new benchmark for both on-farm and comprehensive programmatic assessment in order to demonstrate to the American taxpayer the environmental and cost effectiveness of the practices and conservation systems it is rewarding.

(a) Outcome/Performance Measurement at the Farm Level

It will be important to demonstrate that the implementation of the CSP actually results in improvements in soil, water, habitat, and air quality. The vehicle for estimating outcomes will be through the linkage of the quality criteria to actual outcomes over the medium term in the effort to meet non-degradation standards for defined resources of concern. This goal can be partially met through the enhanced payment to farmers who participate in monitoring and evaluating the impacts of implementing their CSP projects. Broad utilization of the monitoring and evaluation enhanced payment will not only engage farmers in this effort and increase farmer ownership and investment in conservation, but will also provide more robust data for the agency and researchers to use in improving performance over time.

At a national and regional level, NRCS should coordinate with Agricultural Research Service and other soil, water, habitat, and air quality scientists in setting up evaluation protocols, gathering data methods, and recommending data analysis techniques. It would also be cost-effective for NRCS, through cooperative agreements, to help fund and participate in research projects by non-profit organizations to assess the multiple beneficial outcomes of adopted conservation systems and help evolve performance-based evaluation and payment systems. The research soon to be carried out under the leadership of the Land Stewardship Project and Defenders of Wildlife in Minnesota and California, respectively, could serve as models for evaluating on-farm performance from meeting quality criteria. The overarching goal is that CSP move toward rewarding actual outcomes, rather than focus exclusively in the installation or maintenance of practices or structures.

(b) Evaluation of Program Performance

Traditionally, program performance has been measured in terms of acres, farms, or participants enrolled in individual conservation programs. While this information is necessary, it is incomplete. At the local, state, and national levels, the cost-effectiveness of CSP in advancing resource protection and enhancement should be measured, with results broken down by tiers and resources of concern. This will require a more sophisticated tracking system than currently employed by NRCS. It will also require a real commitment to sufficient funding to do a credible job. The Senate version of the farm bill put $10 million a year of CCC funding into monitoring and evaluation. An administrative commitment and plan of that magnitude is desperately needed.

A second aspect of program performance is accountability on the part of the enrolled farmer for receiving public funds and verifying that conservation plans and/or contracts are appropriately carried out. To accomplish this, NRCS and farmers must develop a clear system for accounting for implementation of conservation security plans, the accomplishments achieved, and the costs incurred. Annual reporting, aerial photography, and other means typically used in agriculture programs should be crosschecked against the schedule of plan implementation. Periodic site visits and spot checks will be necessary to ensure that contracts are being implemented properly.

(d) Conservation Plans

A third aspect of program performance is quality assurance for the conservation security plans developed prior to enrolling in CSP. NRCS should add quality assurance measures, including spot checking of internally prepared plans and a process for reviewing all final plans developed by Technical Service Providers, to minimize and deter inadequate plans.

SOME ADDITIONAL KEY POINTS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE 15 QUESTIONS

1. Flexibility and coordination with other programs.

The CSP statute appropriately prohibits cost share payments for the same conservation practice on the same land already covered under EQIP or any other USDA conservation program. Two important implementation issues pertain to this provision. First, despite this prohibition, CSP cost share payments, appropriated calibrated to the additional effort, should be permitted for significant enhancements of practices originally cost-shared through another program. Second, producers should be allowed to convert without penalty from other USDA conservation programs and unify their conservation activities under a CSP contract, provided that all conservation values are retained. The conversion process should be as simple and as farmer-friendly as possible.

2. Coordination with organic farm plans under the National Organic Program.

In response to question number 13, we recommended the creation of organic cropping systems and organic livestock systems conservation practice standards as part of the national handbook. In addition, we continue to urge NRCS and the Agricultural Marketing Service to move forward with advanced planning to provide good customer service and a high level of coordination between National Organic Program and CSP farm plans. Ideally, producers with approved organic certification plans under the National Organic Program should have the option to simultaneously certify under both the CSP and NOP if they meet the standards of both. In addition to being farmer-friendly, this process would also improve both programs - helping to improve conservation standards under organic plans and bringing the enormous environmental benefits of organic systems into the CSP and potentially other NRCS conservation programs.

3. On-farm research and demonstration.

The CSP should aggressively promote the inclusion of research elements and educational programs in CSP contracts, and should reward such activities with a significant enhanced payment. Nothing will promote more conservation better than careful proof of its effectiveness and the ability to see it in action on a real farm. By the same token, by investing in conservation research, producers have a greater stake in outcomes and can assist in the evolution of technical guides and conservation choices. In establishing protocols and payment rates for on-farm research and demonstration, we encourage the agency to adapt the highly successful model of producer-initiated grants under USDA's Sustainable Agriculture and Education Program. We also strongly encourage the agency to develop cooperative agreements at the state and regional levels with non-profit organizations and colleges and universities to assist with the implementation of this element of the CSP.

We would particularly encourage promotion of this research and demonstration option with respect to topics such as plant germplasm conservation and regeneration, greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration, agroecological restoration and wildlife habitat restoration, sustainable livestock and poultry systems based on no or limited confinement, agroforestry systems, energy conservation and management, alternative cropping systems with reduced water use needs, and farm and environmental results monitoring and evaluation.

4. Resource-conserving crop rotations

Resource-conserving crop rotations are eligible for bonus payments under the first enhanced payment criteria, as are managed rotational grazing, conservation buffers, and other high environmental pay-off practices that may be designated by USDA.

The law defines a RCC rotation as "a crop rotation that-

"(A) includes at least 1 resource-conserving crop (as defined by the Secretary);
"(B) reduces erosion;
"(C) improves soil fertility and tilth;
"(D) interrupts pest cycles; and
"(E) in applicable areas, reduces depletion of soil moisture (or otherwise reduces the need for irrigation)."

Earlier versions of the legislation had defined "resource-conserving crop" but, in the final farm bill language, this definition is left to USDA as part of the implementation process. The most comprehensive earlier proposed definition was as follows:

"Resource-conserving crop.--The term `resource-conserving crop' means-

"(A) a perennial grass;
"(B) a legume grown for use as--
"(i) forage;
"(ii) seed for planting; or
"(iii) green manure;
"(C) a legume-grass mixture;
"(D) a small grain grown in combination with a grass or legume, whether interseeded or planted in succession;
"(E) a winter annual oilseed crop which provides soil protection; and
"(F) such other plantings, including non-traditional crops with substantially reduced water use needs, as the Secretary considers appropriate for a particular area."

We urge you to adopt this definition for resource-conserving crop, or something closely adapted from it, as part of the program rule. Getting this definition right, and ensuring it is incorporated into program implementation at all the appropriate points, is very important to the program's success in facilitating sustainable conservation systems improvements.

5. Conservation buffer and partial-field practices

The CSP provides enhanced payments for producers with conservation buffers. The law also specifies producers may engage in sustainable economic use options for all land enrolled in CSP, including land including buffers. The final version of the farm bill does not designate specific buffer practices. Earlier version of the legislation did. Since other conservation programs have sometimes not included certain types of partial field conservation practices or have limited or prohibited economic use, it is important that the rules for CSP be inclusive and also clearly state that economic uses consistent with conservation objectives are allowed. In addition, the rules should define conservation buffers in a way that ensures that a complete conservation system is in place, including upland treatment to ensure the effectiveness of buffers.

Earlier versions of the CSP specified that partial field conservation practices include, but not be limited to:

"windbreaks, grass waterways, shelter belts, filter strips, riparian buffers, wetland buffers, contour buffer strips, living snow fences, crosswind trap strips, field borders, grass terraces, wildlife corridors, and critical area planting appropriate to the agricultural operation"

We urge you to adopt this list in rulemaking and to also include clear and explicit language allowing for a full range of sustainable economic use options.

6. Wildlife related practices - [this section still under review - will be added soon - will include a recommendation of emphasis on conservation and enhancement of habitat for at risk-species, particularly those identified by state natural heritage networks or state biodiversity plans, plus a variety of other points

7. Agroforestry practices

The CSP allows private forested land to be enrolled if it is an incidental part of an agricultural operation. We urge you to include as eligible land any land used for:

"(i) alley cropping;
"(ii) forest farming;
"(iii) forest buffers;
"(iv) windbreaks;
"(v) silvopasture systems; and
"(vi) such other integrated agroforestry uses as may determined to be appropriate in a specific region.

Further specification of these and related agroforestry practices are of course available from the USDA National Agroforestry Center.

8. Education and outreach

We urge you to include specific funding allocations for education and outreach each year. We also strongly endorse special efforts to reach beginning, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged producers. Partnerships and cooperative agreements with non-governmental organizations, cooperative extension, state agencies, and universities can help achieve both of these goals.

9. Cost share payments, including management/maintenance payments

The CSP will pay up to 75% of the cost of a conservation practice, or up to 90% for beginning farmers and ranchers. The CSP, unlike previous conservation programs providing cost-share assistance, will cost share not only newly adopted practices but also the operations, maintenance, and management costs of existing, ongoing conservation practices that help the producer reach the resource management system quality criteria. Due to international trade concerns, the cost-share part of the overall payment will be based on costs of practices in the base year 2001 (as opposed to cost in the year of enrollment or implementation of the practice). No payments will be provided for construction or maintenance of animal waste storage or treatment facilities or associated waste transport or transfer devises for animal feeding operations. With respect to cost share payments, we urge you to: